IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

220 National Insurance Company .…Appellant Versus Smt. Preeti and others ....Respondents

2. FAO-350-2017 Smt. Preeti and others .…Appellants Versus Anshul Goyal, and others ....Respondents Date of Decision: 25.02.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company (in FAO-7411-2016) and for respondent No. 3 (in FAO-350-2017).

Mr. Chetan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 and 6/driver and owner (in FAO-7411-2016) and for respondents No. 1 and 2 (in FAO-350-2017).

Mr. PK Rohila, Advocate for respondent-claimants (in FAO-7411-2016) and for the appellants (in FAO-350-2017).

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the Award dated 09.08.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) whereby Claim Petition No. 93 of 2015 dated 15.05.2015filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short-‘the Act’); filed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, has been partly allowed and compensation of ₹23,12,000/- has been awarded to them.

2. FAO-350-2017 Present cross-appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation of ₹23,12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal vide impugned Award dated09.08.2016 passed in Claim Petition No. 93 of 2015 dated 15.05.2015 filed under Section 166 of the of the Act. The 04 claimants are the: i) 20-year-old widow; ii) 53-year-old father; iii) 50-year-old mother; and iv) 76-year-old grandmother of deceased-Sitender Kumar Dass who was more than 24-years-old at the time of accident.

1. Both the aforementioned cross-appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both appeals are against the same Award dated 09.08.2016; arise out of the same accident dated 04.04.2015; and parties, facts, and issues involved in both the appeals are identical. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from FAO-7411-2016 titled as ‘National Insurance Company vs. Smt. Preeti and others’, and parties are being referred to as per their litigative status in the said appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that deceased-Sitender Kumar, had died in a motor vehicular accident that took place 04.04.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Swift Car bearing registration no. HR-36-L-9683 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) by respondent No.5-Anshul Goyal; owned by respondent No. 6-Chitranjan Goyal; and insured by the appellant- Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded the above compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till actual realization. All the respondents were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company lays challenge to the impugned Award only on ground of quantum of compensation. It is submitted that the amount of compensation to the tune of₹23,12,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as per which future prospects ought to have been added @ 40%; whereas Tribunal had made an addition of 50% towards future prospects.

4. Further, it is submitted that father of the deceased was only 53 years old at the time of accident. Yet he has been taken to be dependent upon the deceased. Even grandmother of the deceased has been held to be dependent upon him. Therefore, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Law Finder Doc Id # 188882, deduction of 1/3^rd ought to have been made; whereas the learned Tribunal has made deduction of 1/4^th towards personal expenses. It is accordingly prayed th